A158944
Cal. Ct. App.Dec 16, 2020Background
- Appellant Luke Lindeman was charged with two felonies (Pen. Code § 69), one misdemeanor (§ 148), and three Vehicle Code infractions arising from a September 7, 2017 traffic stop.
- Officer Aaron Medina stopped a pickup for excessive exhaust and no rear plate; Lindeman gave evasive answers, refused to turn off his truck or produce ID, and was arrested.
- Deputies discovered items reported stolen from a burglary in the bed of Lindeman’s truck; burglary charges were later dismissed.
- While being moved for transport, Lindeman resisted getting back into a patrol car by hooking his toes under the door and stiffening, causing a struggle during which a deputy dislocated a finger; officers used a wrap device to restrain him.
- A prior 2014 incident with similar resistance and use of a wrap device was admitted at trial.
- A jury convicted Lindeman of two § 69 felonies and one § 148 misdemeanor; the court placed him on three years’ probation (120 days jail stayed). Appellate counsel filed a People v. Wende brief; the appellate court conducted independent review and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 69 (resisting an executive officer by force/violence) | Evidence of physical resistance (hooking toes, stiffening, struggle, injury) supports convictions | Resistance was nonviolent or minimal and insufficient to prove § 69 felonies | Convictions affirmed — evidence supported the jury verdict |
| Admissibility of prior 2014 incident | Prior conduct showed pattern/relevance (e.g., intent, absence of mistake) | Prior act was unduly prejudicial and should be excluded | Trial court’s admission upheld; no reversible error |
| Denial of assorted pretrial motions and Marsden motion | Trial court properly exercised discretion in procedural rulings | Denials (motion to dismiss, compel, admit evidence, Marsden motion) were erroneous | No reversible error found in the trial court’s rulings |
| Adequacy of appellate Wende review | Appellate counsel complied with Wende/Kelly duties; record warrants independent review | Appellant filed no supplemental brief asserting issues | Independent review found no arguable appellate issues; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979) (framework for appellate counsel duties and independent review when no arguable issues asserted)
- People v. Kelly, 40 Cal.4th 106 (2006) (clarifies scope and procedure for appellate court’s independent review under Wende)
- People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970) (procedure for defendant complaints about counsel and related trial-court inquiry)